ASSISTANCE TO STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

Fifty-one million dollars will be directed for the development of greater administrative capability where it counts-in the State agencies that administer a majority of programs financed through the Office of Education. More funds, in fact, will be provided to State agencies for administrative purposes than to the Office of Education it-elf.

Mr. FLOOD. Why do you underline that last line in your statement? Who are you trying to impress?

Mr. Howe. I am nor sure where that underlining came from, but there it is. It is an interesting fact, I think.

Mr. FLOOD. Yes, it is. You seem to be so surprised that it was so that you have underlined it.

Mr. LAIRD. There would be something wrong if it were not so. Mr. FLOOD. Well, of course, thereby hangs the tale.

Mr. HowE. Three years ago it wasn't so and it was so last year, I guess, and in the current year.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

To operate the Office of Education, we will require approximately $44 million. This is about 1 percent of our total request.

I would like to touch briefly on our request for salaries and expenses. Mr. FLOOD. Briefly?

Mr. HowE. Briefly.

Well, of course, we will present more detail

later on on this particular subject.

Mr. FLOOD. Yes.

Mr. Howe. As you know, the Office of Education has experienced a phenomenal growth in public funds and programs over the last 3 years. In fact, our current 1967 appropriation represents more than a 450-percent increase over our 1964 appropriation.

Mr. FLOOD. It is hard to believe.

Mr. HowE. There has been a major change.

Mr. FLOOD. Did you ever think you would live that long? I didn't. You would never have believed that 5 years ago.

Mr. Howe. If someone had asked me in 1960 whether this

Mr. FLOOD. 450 percent. Well, there it is.

Mr. Howe. But dollar figures alone do not tell the whole story. Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, perhaps they should have underlined that.

Mr. FLOOD. I don't think they would do that. That is what I did. Mr. Howe. At least, we put it in there, Mr. Laird.

Naturally, this growth has resulted in new and complex relationships between the Office and the educational community. In administering 60 varied programs, our professional staff works closely with State departments of education, local school districts, colleges and universities, State higher education authorities, educational organizations and associations, State library agencies, and other groups. We must assure that Federal funds are used prudently and wisely as intended by Congress, while at the same time respecting local autonomy of education. The job is not an easy one. Our rapid expansion to a $4 billion enterprise has strained our capacity to meet all the demands made of the Office of Education. In general, however, we are pleased

and somewhat proud over our achievements and our rapport with the academic community. But we still need to provide better program coordination and closer informal relationships with our clinetele at the grassroots level. Therefore, we are currently in the process of what we call regionalizing our State grant programs; that is, transferring their day-to-day administrative responsibilities to our field offices.

REGIONAL OFFICES

I might add that we have nine field offices in the various regions of the country located in large cities.

Mr. FLOOD. Would you list those at this point in the record?
Mr. HowE. Yes.

Mr. LAIRD. That is a little different definition of regions, too, in this case, than under the laboratories.

Mr. HowE. Yes, it is.

Mr. CARDWELL. Those coincide with the HEW regional offices. Mr. FLOOD. This is probably a region in the truer sense. All right. Mr. HowE. We feel that these regional offices will provide a more effective liaison of OE and the States in planning and developing programs and in managing funds. At the same time, this will enable our headquarters staff to devote more time to overall planning, development of policy and objectives, and issuance of regulations, instructions, and other operating guides. We are enthusiastic over the results which this regional undertaking promises.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the budget we are proposing is prudent in terms of our economy, and at the same time will enable us to continue these far-reaching programs in an imaginative and creative manner. The President in his budget message reaffirmed that "our Nation's greatness depends upon the full development and abilities of its citizens." We can do no less than strive toward providing the means to obtain this development.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS GUIDELINES

Mr. FLOOD. Thank you very much. You have come a long way in a year.

I believe in taking first things first, so you may as well face this question.

You have gotten far more publicity since you have been in office with regard to civil rights than on anything else, maybe everything else put together. Perhaps this is just as good a time as any for you

to tell us where we are, where we were, where we are going. Have you or the Secretary made or do you propose to make any changes in the guidelines? This will give you a chance in a proper forum to answer your many, many critics. There it is. That is a tough way to begin, but you may as well begin there.

Mr. HowE. I am happy to comment on this, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, in regard to the problem of publicity you are quite right in your observation that there has been a great deal of this. I think it is understandable that most publicity comes where there are areas of controversy and this area of civil rights is certainly an area of controversy which accounts for the publicity.

I would not have you think that the publicity is any measure of percentage of my activities because the very large

Mr. FLOOD. I am not saying the publicity has all been bad. I said publicity.

Mr. HowE. Yes. Well, the point I wanted to make was that whereas the public has gotten more notification of these activities of the Commissioner and the Office than perhaps any other, our activities relate primarily to the programs we administer.

In response to your comprehensive question about where we were, where we are and where we are going, let me give you a brief answer on this and then, if you would like, we can elaborate on it.

We have made no change in the so-called guidelines for the next school year. The Secretary and I have agreed that they ought to continue.

Mr. FLOOD. What do you mean by the next school year?

Mr. HowE. Beginning next September. So the same guidelines that the schools have become accustomed to in the past or current school year will be those which will operate for them in the coming school year.

Mr. FLOOD. So from September of 1967 until when, June of 1968? Mr. HowE. Until June of 1968, right.

Mr. FLOOD. Insofar as the guidelines are concerned, you propose no change?

Mr. Howe. This is right. What we are doing, of course, is attempting to carry through our responsibility under title VI of the Civil Rights Act, an act of Congress which in that title makes us responsible for being sure that none of the funds we administer go to any grantee or recipient who is in any way practicing discrimination.

There are different problems in the administration of all our funds in the schools, particularly different problems in the North and South. The guidelines to which we have just referred are primarily a statement of our policies in dealing with these problems in the South where there has been

Mr. FLOOD. Now, you have read the law. Is it your position that you are adhering to the letter of the law and the intent of the Congress? Is this your position?

Mr. HowE. Yes.

INTENT AND SCOPE OF TITLE VI

Mr. FLOOD. It has been said that you are writing law; that you have gone beyond the intent and scope of the statute. Have you heard that?

Mr. HowE. Yes,

Mr. FLOOD. Well, what about it?

Mr. HowE. I don't believe that is true. We, of course, have proceeded in all of our affairs not only with the advice of our own counsel but with the advice of the Attorney General. We find that most of the actions we take have already been taken by Federal courts in their carrying through of their responsibilities for school desegregation; that our administrative rulings can be documented in decisions of the courts, by and large. There is a very interesting case currently being argued in the fifth circuit. The first ruling on this was favorable to our position on these matters. The entire fifth circuit is now hearing that case.

Mr. FLOOD. What were the elements of the case?

Mr. HowE. The elements of the case were the general application of principles and procedures like those contained in our guidelines to a group of school districts through the Southern States. The fifth circuit ruled by a 2-to-1 decision in December that these principles and procedures were appropriate, and further ruled that the guidelines were fully within the law.

Mr. FLOOD. Has the case gone up?

Mr. HowE. The case has not been taken to the Supreme Court. It has been taken to a full hearing of all the judges of the fifth circuit, a rather extraordinary procedure.

Mr. FLOOD. Full bench?

Mr. HowE. Full bench.

Mr. FLOOD. Not a panel of three, but a full bench?

Mr. HowE. The full bench of the fifth circuit will hear that case. It is an unusual procedure, I believe.

Mr. FLOOD. Go ahead. When do you expect that to be argued, approximately?

Mr. Howe. It has been argued before the court but when the ruling will come out I am not sure. I would expect in the next couple of months.

Mr. FLOOD. Whose idea was the full bench? Did somebody ask for it?

Mr. HowE. It was requested on an appeal, I believe, by the other party in the case, originally before the fifth circuit.

Mr. FLOOD. By the respondents, whoever they were?

Mr. HowE. Yes. We have been talking about our administration of our responsibilities under title VI, primarily in the South where there has been a dual school system in existence and where a dual school system, to a large degree, still exists.

Mr. FLOOD. You are having trouble with your guidelines in Ohio, aren't you?

Mr. HowE. No. There would be no application of the so-called guidelines in Ohio.

Mr. FLOOD. I see.

DE FACTO SEGREGATION IN THE NORTH

Mr. HowE. You have a different legal situation in the North where you have segregated schools. You have a great many segregated schools in the North but the segregation does not grow from the action of public bodies as was the case in the South. It grows, instead, from

what we call de facto segregation and really grows out of decisions of private individuals. Our legal position in regard to segregation of the de facto type is somewhat different from de jure segregation. We have no broad directive under court authority or from the Congress to require changes in de facto segregation.

We do have the possibility of supporting school districts which may wish to make changes in de facto patterns of segregation through funds which we administer. If this is the wish of the school district they may use Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds for such a purpose but this is not a requirement by us in any sense, and there is no legal support for such an activity as a requirement at the present time. Indeed, the Congress in its last session passed an amendment→→ I guess Mr. O'Hara introduced that amendment-forbidding such a requirement, putting the Congress clearly on record that there should be no requirement of what the amendment calls racial balancing under the activities of the Office of Education.

But we do have problems in northern cities which can be described as problems of discrimination and these tend to come to us by the route of complaints by local residents of those cities. We have had, for example, a complaint that most people are aware of in the city of Chicago. The patterns of assignments of teachers in local schools can be discriminatory; the patterns of assignment of pupils in local schools can be discriminatory. That is an assignment by the authority of the school board. The opportunities available to youngsters from minority groups for special educational opportunities in, let's say, Vocational high schools-those opportunities can be so administered that they are discriminatory against members of a minority group. These are the kinds of things that we have encountered and have begun to take some responsibility for in some of the northern schools. Mr. FLOOD. How do you take responsibility?

Mr. HowE. Perhaps the best thing to do is to give you an example of what we have done in Chicago. We sent a team of our people to look at the complaint that was made to us and the complaint included matters of the kind I have just outlined to you. A report was made to me as a result of that study and I sent to the school board of the city of Chicago a series of recommendations about actions they should take in order to remove any possibility of discrimination under their

administration.

I asked them to give me a report on the actions that they had taken by April 1 of this year. I expect to receive such a report from the Chicago School Board.

Mr. FLOOD. Suppose they don't take your recommendation, what do you do?

Mr. HowE. There is always the possibility that we may have to exercise our responsibility under title VI and say that Federal funds cannot be made available if there is evidence of discrimination.

Now, I should make it clear that that is not an arbitrary decision by the Commissioner. Whenever such a decision is reached it is reached as a result of a hearing process before a Federal examiner in which the party concerned has rights to present his side of the situation. Mr. FLOOD. What kind of a Federal program-what kind of a Federal examiner?